FEDERAL DATA 

TRANSPARENCY

Opportunities Remain 

to Incorporate 

Lessons Learned as 

Availability of 

Spending Data 

Increases

Report to Congressional Requesters

September 2013

GAO-13-758

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-13-758, a report to 

congressional requesters

September 2013

FEDERAL DATA TRANSPARENCY

Opportunities Remain to Incorporate Lessons 

Learned as Availability of Spending Data Increases

Why GAO Did This Study

The federal government spends more 

than $3.7 trillion annually, with more 

than $1 trillion awarded through 

contracts, grants, and loans. Improving 

transparency of spending is essential 

to improve accountability. Recent

federal laws have required increased 

public information on federal awards 

and spending. GAO was asked to 

review current efforts to improve 

transparency. This report examines

(1) transparency efforts under way and 

(2) the extent to which new initiatives 

address lessons learned from the 

Recovery Act. GAO reviewed relevant 

legislation, executive orders, OMB 

circulars and guidance, and previous 

GAO work, including work on Recovery 

Act reporting. GAO also interviewed 

officials from OMB, the GAT Board,

and other federal entities; government 

reform advocates; associations 

representing fund recipients; and a 

variety of contract and grant recipients.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that the Director of 

OMB, with the GAT Board, develop a 

long-term plan to implement 

comprehensive transparency reform, 

and increase efforts for obtaining 

stakeholder input to ensure reporting 

challenges are addressed. Further, 

Congress should consider legislating 

transparency requirements and 

establishing clear authority to 

implement these requirements to 

ensure that recommended approaches 

for improving transparency are carried 

out across the federal government.

The GAT Board, OMB and other 

cognizant agencies generally 

concurred with GAO’s 

recommendations and provided further

information, which was incorporated 

into the report as appropriate.

What GAO Found

Several federal entities, including the Government Accountability and

Transparency Board (GAT Board), the Recovery Accountability and 

Transparency Board (Recovery Board), and the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB), have initiatives under way to improve the accuracy and 

availability of federal spending data. The GAT Board, through its working groups, 

developed approaches to standardize key data elements to improve data 

integrity; link financial management systems with award systems to reconcile 

spending data with obligations; and leverage existing data to help improve 

oversight. With no dedicated funding, GAT Board plans are incremental and

leverage ongoing agency initiatives designed to improve existing business 

processes as well as improve data transparency. These initiatives are in an early 

stage, and some progress has been made to bring greater consistency to award

identifiers. The GAT Board’s mandate is to provide strategic direction, not to 

implement changes. Further, while these early plans are being developed with 

input from a range of federal stakeholders, the GAT Board and OMB have not 

developed mechanisms for obtaining input from non-federal fund recipients. 

Lessons from implementing the transparency objectives of the Recovery Act 

could help inform these new initiatives:

• Standardize data to integrate systems and enhance accountability.

Similar to the GAT Board’s current focus on standardization, the Recovery 

Board recognized that standardized data would be more usable by the public 

and the Recovery Board for identifying potential misuse of federal funds. 

However, reporting requirements under the Recovery Act had to be met 

quickly. Because agencies did not collect spending data in a consistent 

manner, the most expedient approach was to collect data from fund 

recipients, even though similar data already existed in agency systems. 

Given the longer timeframes to develop current transparency initiatives, OMB 

and the GAT Board are working toward greater data consistency by focusing 

on data standards. Their plans, however, do not include long-term steps, 

such as working toward uniform award identifiers that would improve award 

tracking with less burden on recipients.

• Obtain stakeholder involvement as reporting requirements are 

developed. During the Recovery Act, federal officials listened to the 

concerns of recipients and made changes to guidance in response, which 

helped ensure they could meet those requirements. Without similar outreach 

under current initiatives, reporting challenges may not be addressed, 

potentially impairing the data’s accuracy and completeness, and increasing

burden on those reporting. 

• Delineate clear requirements and lines of authority for implementing 

transparency initiatives. Unlike the present efforts to expand spending 

transparency, the Recovery Act provided OMB and the Recovery Board with 

clear authority and mandated reporting requirements. Given this clarity,

transparency provisions were carried out successfully and on time. Going 

forward, without clear, legislated authority and requirements, the ability to 

sustain progress and institutionalize transparency initiatives may be 

jeopardized as priorities shift over time.

View GAO-13-758. For more information, 

contact Stanley J. Czerwinski, (202) 512-6806, 

czerwinskis@gao.gov
Page i GAO-13-758 Federal Spending Data Transparency

Letter 1

Background 4

Transparency Efforts Under Way Focus On Standardizing Data to 

Integrate Systems and Enhance Spending Oversight 9

As Transparency Efforts Get Under Way, Opportunities Remain to 

Incorporate Lessons Learned from the Recovery Act 19

Conclusions 26

Recommendations for Executive Action 27

Matter for Congressional Consideration 28

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 28

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 31

Appendix II Government Accountability and Transparency Board and 

Work Group Agency Partners 34

Appendix III Comments from the Department of Health and Human 

Services 35

Appendix IV GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 38

Table

Table 1: Composition and Purpose of the GAT Board Working 

Groups 34

Figures

Figure 1: Timeline of Selected Data Transparency Initiatives 6

Figure 2: USAspending.gov Data Sources 8

Figure 3: Recovery.gov Data Sources 9

Figure 4: Government Accountability and Transparency Board 

Transparency Initiatives 12

Contents
Page ii GAO-13-758 Federal Spending Data Transparency

Abbreviations

CAOC Chief Acquisition Officers Council

CIGIE Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and 

Efficiency

COFAR Council on Financial Assistance Reform

DATA Digital Accountability and Transparency Act

DOD Department of Defense

FAR Federal Acquisition Regulation

FFATA Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency 

Act of 2006

FPDS-NG Federal Procurement Data System-Next 

Generation 

GAT Board Government Accountability and Transparency 

Board

GRIP Grants Reporting Information Project 

GSA General Services Administration

HHS Health and Human Services

OFFM Office of Federal Financial Management

OFPP Office of Federal Procurement Policy

OMB Office of Management and Budget

Recovery Act American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009

Recovery Board Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board

ROC Recovery Operations Center

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-13-758 Federal Spending Data Transparency

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

September 12, 2013

Congressional Requesters:

The federal government spends more than $3.7 trillion annually. Of that, 

more than $1 trillion is awarded through contracts, grants, and loans, and 

an additional $1 trillion is forgone in tax revenues through tax 

expenditures.1 Transparency—shedding light on the amount of spending, 

what it is spent on, who receives the funds, and what are the results of 

that spending—is essential to improving government accountability and 

fostering civic engagement. Within the last decade, Congress and the 

administration have taken several steps to improve the transparency of 

federal spending data, including the passage of two statutes intended to 

expand public access to information on federal programs. The first, the 

Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (FFATA), 

required the establishment of an information website on grant and 

contract awards and subawards.2 Today, this federal agency and 

subrecipient information is available at www.USAspending.gov. The 

second, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery 

Act), required that recipients’ reports on award and spending data be 

made available on a website.3

While many believe that the transparency of federal spending data has 

increased, both the administration and members of Congress have 

Today, this information is accessible at 

www.Recovery.gov. These transparency efforts have enabled civic 

engagement, and have allowed the public—from ordinary citizens to 

sophisticated data users—to access information on spending, recipients, 

and uses of funds. The data’s availability has also provided opportunities 

for increased oversight to prevent and detect fraud, waste, and abuse of 

federal funds, and to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of federal 

spending.

 1

For the purpose of this report federal spending data includes all federal expenditures or 

obligations for grants, salaries and wages, procurement contracts, direct payments for 

individuals, and other direct payments, plus commitments in the form of direct loans, 

guaranteed or insured loans, and insurance.

2

Pub. L. No. 109-282, 120 Stat. 1186 (2006), as amended by Pub. L. No. 110-252, 

§ 6202(a), 122 Stat. 2323, 2387 (2008) (codified at 31 U.S.C. § 6101 note).

3

Pub. L. No. 111-5, §§ 1512, 1526, 123 Stat. 115, 287–288, 293–294 (2009).
Page 2 GAO-13-758 Federal Spending Data Transparency

suggested the need for more transparency. At present, USAspending.gov 

only provides data on funds awarded; the site does not include 

information on disbursements. In terms of data collection, federal 

agencies and recipients report to various systems, sometimes with the 

same information and, as a result, direct unnecessary time and resources 

to administrative activities. In addition, the lack of consistent data 

structures prevents easy aggregation of data at the government-wide 

level, hampering the ability to link existing financial, award, and 

procurements systems. It also increases the cost of government 

transactions and the burden on federal fund recipients. And, as we have 

reported previously, the accuracy and reliability of the data needs to be 

improved.4 Emerging transparency efforts include specific changes in 

data collection under consideration by the Government Accountability and 

Transparency Board (GAT Board), newly-created under a June 2011 

Executive Order.5 Further, proposed legislation has been introduced in 

the House and the Senate designed to improve the transparency of 

federal spending data.6

Given these various initiatives under way, you asked us to examine 

federal efforts to increase the transparency of federal spending data, and 

identify lessons from the experience of operating existing data systems 

that could contribute to these efforts. We examined (1) federal initiatives 

to improve the accuracy and availability of federal spending data and (2) 

the extent to which lessons identified by us and federal fund recipients 

from the operation of Recovery.gov and USAspending.gov are being 

addressed by these new transparency initiatives.

To address these objectives we examined data collection and reporting 

requirements under FFATA and the Recovery Act; the June 2011 

Executive Order related to transparency; relevant Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) guidance; and action plans created by the GAT Board, 

Recovery Board, and other federal entities with responsibility for 

 4

See, for example, GAO, Electronic Government: Implementation of the Federal Funding 

Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006, GAO-10-365 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 12, 

2010).

5

Executive Order 13,576, “Delivering an Efficient, Effective, and Accountable 

Government,” 76 Fed. Reg. 35,297 (June 16, 2011).

6

Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2013, H.R. 2061, 113th Cong. (2013); 

Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2013, S. 994, 113th Cong. (2013). 
Page 3 GAO-13-758 Federal Spending Data Transparency

developing approaches to improve federal data transparency. We 

interviewed officials at OMB, the GAT Board, and the Recovery Board 

who are examining new data transparency initiatives. We also interviewed 

officials at three agencies who are developing new transparency 

prototypes within their agencies: the Department of Defense (DOD), the 

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and the Department of 

Treasury (Treasury), respectively. We also interviewed officials at the 

General Services Administration (GSA), the agency that manages 

USAspending.gov. To get their perspectives on lessons learned from both 

the operation of existing transparency systems and federal efforts under 

way to improve data transparency, we spoke with officials from 

organizations representing federal fund recipients and government reform 

organizations.7

We conducted this performance audit from November 2012 to September 

2013 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

We also conducted seven focus groups with federal fund 

recipients representing state and local governments, nonprofit 

organizations, higher education research institutions, and private 

businesses who receive grants from, or contracted with, the federal 

government. Finally, we reviewed our previous work on the reporting 

successes and challenges experienced by both agencies and federal

fund recipients. This step allowed us to identify lessons learned from 

those experiences that should be considered as new approaches to data 

transparency are developed. Although we spoke with numerous affected 

entities and stakeholders with opinions on transparency, our work should 

not be considered to be generalizeable to all who have opinions about 

these issues.

 7

For this review, we interviewed and collected comments from officials at the following 

organizations: National Association of State Auditors, Comptrollers, and Treasurers; 

National Association of State Budget Officers; National Association of Counties; Federal 

Demonstration Partnership; National Council of Nonprofits; National Association of State 

Chief Information Officers; Council on Government Relations; Professional Services 

Council; Center for Effective Government; Project on Government Oversight; and Sunlight 

Foundation. We selected these associations because our preliminary research indicated 

that they had either been involved in Recovery Act implementation, had published reports 

related to the Recovery Act, or had expressed official positions on existing transparency 

systems.
Page 4 GAO-13-758 Federal Spending Data Transparency

and conclusions based on our audit objectives. For more information on 

our objectives, scope, and methodology, see appendix I.

Between 2006 and 2011, Congress initiated two significant efforts to 

increase public awareness of, and access to, federal spending data: the 

Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (FFATA), 

and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery 

Act). Both acts mandated the creation of public-access websites, which 

involved a broad range of data-collection and data-reporting activities, 

and required OMB and federal agencies, among others, to address 

multiple levels of accountability and transparency. The passage of FFATA 

was part of a series of legislative and executive branch efforts to make 

comprehensive data on federal awards available to the public. Congress 

passed FFATA in 2006 to increase the transparency of and accountability 

for the more than $1 trillion in contracts and financial assistance awarded 

annually by federal agencies. Among other things, the act required OMB 

to establish a free, publicly accessible web site containing data on federal 

awards (e.g., contracts, loans, and grants) no later than January 1, 2008. 

In addition, the act required OMB to include data on subawards by 

January 1, 2009 and authorized OMB to provide guidance and instruction 

to agencies to ensure the existence and operation of the website, and 

required agencies to comply with that guidance. OMB launched the web 

site—www.USASpending.gov—in December 2007. However, in 2010, we 

reported that the award data in USAspending.gov was not always 

complete or reliable.8

To improve the quality of the data reported on USAspending.gov, OMB 

issued guidance under the Open Government Directive that directed 

agencies to (1) designate a high-level senior official to be accountable for 

the quality of federal spending information disseminated on public 

websites; (2) establish a data quality framework for federal spending 

information, including a governance structure, risk assessments, control 

activities, and monitoring program; and (3) submit plans to OMB for 

addressing these requirements.9

 8

OMB also issued guidance to agencies 

on improving the data quality of the Federal Procurement Data SystemNext Generation (FPDS-NG), and established a deadline for the agencies 

GAO-10-365.

9

OMB, Open Government Directive, M-10-06 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 8, 2009).

Background
Page 5 GAO-13-758 Federal Spending Data Transparency

to collect subaward data.10

In crafting the Recovery Act, Congress and the administration envisioned 

an unprecedented level of transparency into federal spending data. The 

act required recipients of Recovery Act funds to submit quarterly reports 

with information on each project or activity, including the amount and use 

of funds and an estimate of the number of jobs created and the number of 

jobs retained. Similar to FFATA, the Recovery Act called for the 

establishment of a website that would give the public access to 

information on the many projects and activities funded under the act. The 

Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board launched the 

Recovery.gov site in 2009 to fulfill these requirements. In addition, a 

second site—www.FederalReporting.gov—was established for recipients 

to report their data. Recipients first reported in early October 2009 on the 

period from February through September 2009. Reporting has continued 

for each quarter since then.

FPDS-NG is a contract database that is one of 

the main sources of USAspending.gov data.

More recently, in June 2011, the administration issued Executive Order 

13576 “Delivering an Efficient, Effective, and Accountable Government.”

The order, among other things, established the GAT Board to provide 

strategic direction for enhancing transparency of federal spending data. 

The GAT Board was also charged with advancing efforts to detect fraud, 

waste, and abuse of federal programs. Its 11 members include agency 

inspectors general, agency chief financial officers, a senior OMB official

and other such members as the President shall designate. The GAT 

Board is mandated to work with the Recovery Board to build on lessons 

learned from the Recovery Act’s implementation.

 10OMB, Improving Acquisition Data Quality for Fiscal Years 2009 and 2010 (Washington, 

D.C.: Oct. 7, 2009).
Page 6 GAO-13-758 Federal Spending Data Transparency

Figure 1: Timeline of Selected Data Transparency Initiatives

USAspending.gov and Recovery.gov rely on different sources of 

information, and make different types of data available to the public. 

USAspending.gov provides information on federal award obligations, 

including the recipient’s name, funding agency, amount of award, and 

descriptive title. It relies primarily on data submitted by federal agencies 

and, to some extent, by recipients. In addition, agencies use different 

reporting platforms to submit information about contract and grant 

awards. In contrast, Recovery.gov, which relies primarily on information 

submitted by recipients, provides information on federal award 

expenditures, including information on each project or activity funded, the 

amount and use of funds, and an estimate of the jobs funded.
Page 7 GAO-13-758 Federal Spending Data Transparency

The USAspending.gov website draws data from different data sources, as 

shown in figure 2.

• The Federal Procurement Data System-Next Generation: 

Procurement data are imported from this system, which collects 

information on contract actions, procurement trends, and achievement 

of socioeconomic goals, such as small business participation. OMB 

was responsible for establishing the system, and GSA administers it. 

Since 1980, FPDS-NG and its predecessor FPDS have been the 

primary government-wide databases for contracting information. 

Federal agencies are responsible for ensuring the information 

reported in this database is complete and accurate.

• The Data Submission and Validation Tool: Data on financial 

assistance awards (grants, loans, loan guarantees, cooperative 

agreements and other assistance) are provided by federal agencies 

and are transmitted directly to GSA via this tool. As with FPDS-NG, 

federal agencies are responsible for ensuring the information reported 

in this database is complete and accurate.

• The FFATA Subaward Reporting System: Contractors and grant 

recipients use this tool to capture and report subaward and executive 

compensation data regarding their first-tier subawards to meet the 

FFATA reporting requirements. Contractors and grant recipients are 

required to file a report within a specified timeframe after making a 

subaward greater than $25,000 and they are responsible for ensuring 

information reported to this database is complete and accurate.
Page 8 GAO-13-758 Federal Spending Data Transparency

Figure 2: USAspending.gov Data Sources

In contrast to USAspending.gov, Recovery.gov’s data are collected from 

federal fund recipients. Section 1512 of the Recovery Act requires 

recovery fund recipients to report quarterly on Recovery Act-related 

spending. Recipients provide their information to the agency through 

FederalReporting.gov. Agencies, then, review the data provided. The 

validated data are then published on Recovery.gov, as illustrated by 

figure 3.
Page 9 GAO-13-758 Federal Spending Data Transparency

Figure 3: Recovery.gov Data Sources

The GAT Board’s role is to provide strategic direction for enhancing 

federal spending transparency. Along with OMB and the Recovery Board, 

it oversees several ongoing government-wide initiatives designed to 

expand the transparency of federal spending data. As part of its role to 

provide strategic direction, the GAT Board established four work groups 

in 2012 and 2013 (see figure 4). These groups are charged with 

developing approaches for improving transparency across three 

functional areas—procurement, grants, and financial management—and 

expanding data availability to improve spending oversight. Work group 

members represent the federal procurement, grants, financial 

Transparency Efforts 

Under Way Focus On 

Standardizing Data to 

Integrate Systems and 

Enhance Spending 

Oversight

With Its Role Limited to 

Providing Strategic 

Direction, the GAT Board 

Is Leveraging Ongoing 

Agency Initiatives for 

Implementation
Page 10 GAO-13-758 Federal Spending Data Transparency

management, and oversight communities. The members are set up to 

leverage the collective expertise of several interagency forums.

• Procurement Data Standardization and Integrity Working Group:

The work group was established to identify approaches for 

standardizing contract data elements and electronic transactions to 

ensure data are accurate and contract transactions can be tracked 

from purchase order through vendor payment. As the federal 

government’s largest contracting agency, DOD is a lead agency on 

this work group, along with members of OMB’s Office of Federal 

Procurement Policy (OFPP). The Procurement Work Group initiative 

grew out of OMB’s and DOD’s long-standing efforts to improve the 

accuracy of contract data that agencies submit to FPDS-NG. Work 

group members also include representatives from the Chief 

Acquisition Officers Council, an interagency forum of agency 

acquisition officers.11

• Grants Data Standardization and Integrity Working Group: The 

work group has been tasked with developing approaches to 

standardize grants data elements to achieve greater consistency 

across the federal government. HHS, along with OMB’s Office of 

Federal Financial Management (OFFM), provides leadership to this 

work group. Members also include representatives from the newly 

established Council on Financial Assistance Reform (COFAR).12

According to HHS officials, the group’s efforts build on the agency’s 

prior work with the Grants Policy Council and the Grants Executive 

Board to standardize and streamline grant procedures.13

• Financial Management Integration and Data Integrity Working 

Group: The GAT Board, in conjunction with Treasury, is examining 

approaches for linking the financial management data maintained in 

agency financial systems with agency awards data in order to improve 

the quality of data displayed to the public. The GAT Board established 

this work group to align with Treasury’s ongoing efforts to define their 

data vision and approach, including a proposal to move the 

 11The council consists of executive branch acquisition professionals and was established 

to provide a senior level forum for monitoring and improving the federal acquisition 

system. 41 U.S.C. §§ 1311–1312.

12OMB, Creation of the Council on Financial Assistance Reform, M-12-01 (Washington, 

D.C.: Oct. 27, 2011).

13The Grants Policy Council and the Grants Executive Board were replaced by COFAR in 

2011.
Page 11 GAO-13-758 Federal Spending Data Transparency

administrative responsibility for USAspending.gov from the GSA to 

Treasury. While the GAT Board is responsible for setting direction and 

developing strategy, the Board is leveraging Treasury’s on-going 

modernization efforts with assistance from OFFM.

• Data Analytics Working Group: The work group was formed in 

response to the executive order establishing the GAT Board, which 

required the board to advance efforts to detect and remediate fraud, 

waste, and abuse in federal programs. The group is under the 

direction of the Inspector General of the United States Postal Service 

and has representatives from the Recovery Board. The group also 

provides information about its activities with the Council of Inspectors 

General for Integrity and Efficiency.

14

The GAT Board, through its working groups, is in the process of 

determining approaches for carrying out its mission. However, its 

mandate is only to develop strategy, not to implement it. The GAT Board 

relies on the working groups’ lead agencies to develop recommendations 

and implement approaches that it has approved. Moreover, with no 

dedicated funding, the GAT Board’s strategic plan is short-term and calls 

for an incremental approach that builds upon ongoing agency initiatives. 

These initiatives include efforts to modernize systems or improve agency 

management, designed to improve existing business processes as well 

as improve data transparency.

The working group’s goal is to 

expand on the Recovery Board’s Recovery Operation Center (ROC) 

for improving fraud detection in federal spending.

15 The GAT Board’s initial plans largely 

focus on efforts at the federal level and some progress has been made to 

bring greater consistency to award identifiers.16

 14The Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency is an independent entity 

within the executive branch. It was established to address integrity, economy, and 

effectiveness issues that transcend individual government agencies. The council also is 

charged with increasing the professionalism and effectiveness of personnel by developing 

policies, standards, and approaches to aid in establishing a well-trained and highly-skilled 

workforce in the offices of the Inspectors General. Inspector General Reform Act of 2008, 

Pub. L. No. 110-409, § 7, 122 Stat. 4302, 4305–4313 (2008) (codified at 5 U.S.C. App. 3, 

§ 11 (Inspector General Act of 1978)).

15 The GAT Board’s strategic plan establishes a set of goals for calendar year 2013. See: 

The Government and Transparency Board, Way Forward for Calendar Year 2013

(Washington, D.C: Mar. 27, 2013).

16An award identifier is typically alphanumeric and used by agencies to collect financial 

information, keep track of progress of awards and whether recipients are meeting award 

program requirements, and for invoices, payment requests, and payments.
Figure 4: Government Accountability Transparency Board and Work Group Agency Partners. Interactive graphic

Page 12 GAO-13-758 Federal Spending Data Transparency

Print instructions To print text version of this graphic, go to appendix II.

Roll over each GAT Board seat at the table and each Work Group listed in the chart below to see more 

information regarding the member agencies.

Directions:

GAT Board

(Government Accountability and Transparency Board)

Working Groups
Page 13 GAO-13-758 Federal Spending Data Transparency

Data standardization and a uniform convention for identifying contract and 

grant awards throughout their life cycle are the first steps in ensuring data 

quality and tracking spending data. The GAT Board’s December 2011 

Report to the President notes that introducing greater consistency into the 

award process will help better reconcile spending information from 

multiple sources and allow for more effective analysis and oversight.17

According to GAT Board officials, efforts to standardize and improve the 

integrity of contract data are being advanced through a series of Federal 

Acquisition Regulatory (FAR) Council rulemakings.

Currently, efforts under way are aimed at introducing more consistency 

into the way federal spending data are reported, collected, and publically 

displayed. Initial efforts are focused on identifying approaches to 

standardize contract and grant data elements. These efforts are intended 

to improve the accuracy of spending data, link award data to payment 

data to help track awards throughout the life cycle, and advance efforts to 

detect and remediate fraud, waste, and abuse. While these efforts are 

largely in the early stages of development, progress has been made to 

establish more uniform award identifiers, and to test the plausibility of 

using data standards and a centralized data-collection portal to minimize 

the burden of federal fund recipients.

18

 17The Government Accountability and Transparency Board, Report and 

Recommendations to the President (Washington, D.C.: December 2011).

In particular, DOD 

developed a proposal based in part on work of the GAT Board for the 

FAR Council to consider a uniform procurement identifier—a number that 

could be attached to a contract so it can be tracked throughout the 

procurement process. The recently proposed FAR regulation will require 

federal agencies to use unique procurement instrument identifiers starting 

no later than October 1, 2014, for all new solicitations and awards. To 

further standardize procurement transactions across the federal 

government, the proposed rule also calls for the implementation of a 

uniform procurement instrument identifier system as the unique identifier 

18The members of the FAR Council jointly issue and maintain a single government-wide 

procurement regulation, known as FAR. The FAR Council’s membership consists of the 

OFPP Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy, the Secretary of Defense, the 

Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the GSA 

Administrator. The Council manages, coordinates, controls, and monitors the maintenance

of, issuance of, and changes in, FAR. 41 U.S.C. §§ 1301–1304. The FAR Council 

periodically publishes rules implementing changes to the FAR. A final rule is typically 

preceded by a proposed rule, published in the Federal Register and seeking public 

comments.

Efforts Are Under Way to 

Standardize Key Data 

Elements So That Data 

Integrity is Improved
Page 14 GAO-13-758 Federal Spending Data Transparency

for all contracting offices.19

OMB, in consultation with the GAT Board, has issued new guidance that 

requires all federal agencies to establish unique identification numbers for 

financial assistance awards. It also mandates agencies to check the 

accuracy of spending information against an official record of agency 

accounts.

This would enable a contract to be tracked 

across various systems and across its life cycle.

20 While this guidance could help bring greater consistency to 

grant award data, it only requires agencies to assign award numbers 

unique within their agency to grant transactions. Thus, the guidance does 

not provide the same level of uniformity as is required for contracts nor 

does it provide uniformity across all contract and financial assistance 

spending. Agencies and even subunits of agencies use inconsistent 

award-numbering systems. These respective systems are created to 

conform to their own internal agency management systems to identify 

contracts, grants, and loans. In many agencies, there is no direct link or 

continuous use of one standard award identifier between systems and 

offices. The disparate award identification systems and naming 

conventions used by agencies today make the task of reporting and 

tracking spending data inefficient and burdensome. Recovery Board 

officials raised some concerns, noting that a lack of uniform standards for 

identifying grants would make it difficult to pre-populate recipient reports 

with information from the awarding agency, and reconcile obligation with 

award data. While this lack of uniformity may not optimize the use of the 

data, OMB has noted that, in combination with other information provided, 

it will uniquely identify a given grant. Further, in their oral comments on 

our draft report, an OMB staff member told us that standardizing an 

identifier format could cause problems for agency systems because some 

agencies structure their award identifiers to track particular characteristics 

of grants for their internal use. Therefore, OMB has issued this guidance 

and then will evaluate the improvements in light of the added resources

needed to implement them.

 1978 Fed. Reg. 34,020 (June 6, 2013).

20The June 12, 2013, memorandum, “Improving Data Quality for USAspending.gov,”

requires all federal agencies to (1) assign financial assistance award identification 

numbers unique within the Federal agency; and (2) identify and implement a process to 

compare and validate USAspending.gov funding information with data in the agency’s 

financial system.
Page 15 GAO-13-758 Federal Spending Data Transparency

As part of its work with the Grants Data Standardization and Integrity 

Working Group, HHS recently completed a preliminary analysis to 

determine the degree to which grants data elements are standardized 

across the federal government. According to the chair of the GAT Board, 

it is currently more challenging to standardize grants data elements 

because, unlike FAR’s uniform procurement regulations, there is no 

single set of grant regulations in use across the federal government.

The Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board recently concluded 

a proof-of-concept project that tests the feasibility of using 

FederalReporting.gov, to collect data on non-Recovery Act grant 

expenditures. In a pilot involving nine grant recipients and two federal 

agencies,21 the Grant Reporting Information Project (GRIP) captured data 

elements from OMB’s standardized grant expenditure reporting form 

Standard Form 425, as well as subrecipient and vendor expense data. 

GRIP also tested whether such a system could lessen reporting burden 

and improve the accuracy of the data submitted by fund recipients. In 

addition, the pilot tested whether the use of a universal award 

identification number could be used to track grant expenditures 

throughout the grant life cycle. The Recovery Board’s analysis of the 

GRIP project found that feedback from the pilot participants supported 

using FederalReporting.gov for grant reporting. The analysis also 

validated the effectiveness of using a universal award identifier.22

 21Federal fund recipients included several institutions of higher education—the University 

of Washington, the University of Mexico, Colorado State University, the University of 

Wisconsin, the University of North Carolina System, the College of Lake County, IL—and 

the city of Bowie, Maryland, and the state of Nebraska. The Environmental Protection 

Agency and the United States Department of Agriculture also participated in the study.

In 

addition, the board’s analysis found that, while such features as machinereadable formats and pre-populated data fields helped the reporting 

experience, due to the pilot’s short duration, GRIP did not fully 

demonstrate that it could reduce the burden on recipients. Similarly, the 

Federal Demonstration Partnership, whose member universities 

participated in the GRIP pilot, issued a report. It found that, while using a 

standard schema increases reporting efficiency, and pre-populating data 

22Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, Grants Reporting Information Project, 

Washington, D.C.: June 2013.
Page 16 GAO-13-758 Federal Spending Data Transparency

can enhance reporting and verify accuracy, at least initially, the pilot did 

not reduce the burden on recipients.23

Information about federal government spending is collected in a complex 

web of systems and processes that are both overlapping and fragmented. 

While having standardized data and award identifiers is an important first 

step to effectively track spending, federal entities also have begun to 

examine ways to consolidate and streamline data systems that are 

overlapping or duplicative. The Financial Management Integration and 

Data Display Working Group is developing recommendations for a work 

plan that will leverage Treasury’s on-going transparency and system 

modernization efforts.

First, building on Treasury’s initiative to standardize payment transaction 

processes, the Payment Application Modernization project will 

consolidate more than 30 agency payment systems into a single 

application. This application will process agency payment requests using 

Treasury’s Standard Payment Request format.24

 23Federal Demonstration Partnership, Grant Report Information Project: Final Report, 

Washington, D.C.: May 2013. Available at

All federal agencies that 

use Treasury disbursing services (Treasury disbursing organizations) will 

be directed to submit payment data into the newly developed standard 

format by October 1, 2014. A Treasury official said that federal agencies 

representing about 142 of 437 agency location codes had either 

converted to the new format, were testing the new format, or had set a 

schedule when they would implement the new payment request format. 

Despite the finding, this official expressed doubt about the ability of some 

agencies that do not use Treasury for disbursing payments to comply with 

the data standards by the deadline. The official did note that Treasury

continues to provide assistance to these agencies.

http://sites.nationalacademies.org/PGA/fdp

24Treasury disbursing organizations will be directed to use the Standard Payment Request 

format to submit detailed payment and accounting data, which in turn will be used to 

populate the Payment Information Repository. Non-Treasury disbursed agencies will be 

directed to report detailed payment and accounting data directly to the Payment 

Information Repository using a different but standard format. Both the Standard Payment 

Request format used by Treasury disbursed agencies as well as the direct input format 

used by Non-Treasury disbursed agencies defines the data elements and validation rules 

that must be used to report payments and associated information into the Payment 

Information Repository.

The GAT Board Is Building 

on Treasury’s Efforts to 

Integrate Financial 

Management Systems to 

Track Spending Better
Page 17 GAO-13-758 Federal Spending Data Transparency

Second, the Financial Management Integration and Data Display Working 

Group is also building on Treasury’s initiative to develop a centralized 

repository containing detailed and summarized records of payment 

transactions from all federal agencies. The Payment Information 

Repository will contain data on all payments disbursed by Treasury plus 

those reported by the Federal agencies that disburse their own 

payments.25 This repository will contain descriptive data on those 

payments for which matching with other data sources (e.g. accounting 

data, grant data, commercial vendor data, geographic data, etc.) will 

provide additional information regarding the purpose, program, location 

and commercial recipient of the payment.

A number of government oversight and law enforcement agencies are 

using data analytics—which involve a variety of techniques to analyze 

and interpret data to facilitate decision making—to help identify and 

reduce fraud, waste, and abuse. Data mining applications are emerging 

as essential tools to inform management decisions, develop governmentwide best practices and common solutions, and effectively detect and 

combat fraud in large programs and investments. For example, predictive 

analytic technologies can identify fraud and errors before payments are 

made. Others, such as data-mining and data-matching techniques, can 

identify fraud or improper payments that have already been awarded. 

Thus, agencies have help in recovering these dollars. Data mining 

applications are emerging as essential tools to inform management 

decisions as well. According to GAT Board officials, making more data 

available, and doing so in real time, will help agencies make better 

informed decisions about how they manage federal funds.

The Recovery Board’s ROC, established in 2009, uses data analytics to 

monitor Recovery Act spending to detect and prevent the fraudulent use 

of funds made available under the act. As part of this effort, ROC analysts 

use a set of tools that can search large amounts of data from multiple 

sources. This process is designed to look for patterns and anomalies that 

could indicate the existence of fraud. The Board has provided several 

 25Treasury processes payments for most federal agencies. Thus, it maintains 

transactional level data on 85 percent of all federal government payments. Non Treasury 

Disbursing Agencies, including the State Department, HHS, DOD, the Administrative 

Office of the U.S. Courts, and the Senate, process their own payments but report to 

Treasury on a non transactional level.

GAT Board Efforts Also 

Focus on Leveraging 

Existing Data to Enhance 

Spending Oversight
Page 18 GAO-13-758 Federal Spending Data Transparency

inspectors general with access to these tools through 

www.FederalAccountability.gov. This site allows inspectors general to 

review and evaluate entities, such as individuals, companies, and 

universities, who have received Recovery Act funds. In some cases, ROC 

staff was able to notify some agencies that they had awarded Recovery 

funds to companies that were debarred. Thus, these companies should 

not have received federal funds. For example, ROC analysts found 

hidden assets that resulted in a court ordering the payment of a fine. They 

also found several individuals employed by other entities while receiving 

worker’s compensation benefits.

The GAT Board’s Data Analytics Working Group has set a goal of 

expanding on the ROC’s work to develop a shared platform for improving 

fraud detection in federal spending programs. This approach relies on the 

development of data standards. It will provide a set of analytic tools for 

fraud detection to be shared across the federal government. Although this 

work is just starting, working group members have identified several 

challenges to developing and implementing a shared platform and 

analytic tools for fraud detection. These challenges include reaching 

consensus among federal agencies on a set of common data attributes to 

be used, and changes needed to existing privacy laws to allow access to 

certain types of protected data and systems.

In January 2013, we convened a forum on data analytics in conjunction 

with the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency and 

the Recovery Board.26 Its purpose was to explore ways in which oversight 

and law enforcement agencies use data analytics to detect and prevent 

fraud, waste, and abuse, and to identify the most significant challenges to 

realizing the potential of data analytics. Forum participants identified a 

range of challenges, including technical and legal challenges currently 

experienced by oversight and law enforcement agencies. In particular, 

participants highlighted challenges to expanding data sharing within the 

federal government, including requirements of the Computer Matching 

and Privacy Protection Act of 1988, as amended,27

 26See GAO, Highlights of a Forum: Data Analytics for Oversight and Law Enforcement, 

that hindered fraud 

detection efforts and a lack of data standards and a universal award 

GAO-13-680SP. (Washington, D.C.: July 15, 2013).

27Agencies’ use of certain records when performing certain computer matching programs 

is subject to statutory safeguards. See 5 U.S.C. § 552a(o), (p), (q) and (u).
Page 19 GAO-13-758 Federal Spending Data Transparency

identifier that limit data sharing across the federal government and across 

federal, state, and local agencies. Participants also identified 

opportunities to enhance data-analytics efforts. These opportunities 

included consolidating data and analytics operations in one location to 

increase efficiencies by enabling the pooling of resources as well as 

accessing and sharing of the data.

The GAT Board’s mandated responsibilities include working with the 

Recovery Board to build on lessons learned and applying approaches 

developed by the Recovery Board to new efforts to enhance the 

transparency of federal spending. As discussed above, the GAT Board, 

the Recovery Board, OMB, and other federal agencies have initiatives 

under way to improve federal spending transparency. These initiatives 

include efforts to standardize data and consolidate data systems to 

improve the accuracy of federal spending and expand oversight of these 

funds. In many cases these initiatives build on lessons learned from the 

operation of existing transparency systems, including Recovery.gov and 

USAspending.gov. However, as new transparency initiatives get under 

way, opportunities exist to give additional consideration to these lessons 

to help ensure new transparency programs and policies are implemented 

successfully.

One of the key lessons learned from the implementation of the Recovery 

Act’s transparency provisions, was the value of standardized data, 

including a uniform award identification number for contracts, grants, 

loans, and other forms of financial assistance. The transparency 

envisioned under the Recovery Act for tracking spending was 

unprecedented for the federal government, requiring the development of 

a system that could track billions of dollars disbursed to thousands of 

recipients. The system also needed to be operational quickly for a variety 

of programs, across which even the basic question of what constituted a 

program or project differed. While agencies had systems that captured 

such information as award amounts, funds disbursed, and, to varying 

degrees, progress being made by recipients, the lack of uniform federal 

data and reporting standards made it difficult to obtain these data from 

federal agencies. Instead data were collected directly from recipients, 

which placed additional burden on them to provide these data.

As it developed procedures for reporting on the use of federal funds, 

OMB directed recipients of covered funds to use a series of standardized 

data elements. Further, rather than report to multiple government entities, 

As Transparency 

Efforts Get Under 

Way, Opportunities 

Remain to 

Incorporate Lessons 

Learned from the 

Recovery Act

Lesson One: Standardized 

Data Enhances 

Accountability and 

Supports Systems 

Integration
Page 20 GAO-13-758 Federal Spending Data Transparency

each with its own disparate reporting requirements, all recipients of 

Recovery funds were required to report centrally into the Recovery 

Board’s inbound reporting website, FederalReporting.gov.28 According to 

the GAT Board’s 2011 report to the President, the Recovery Board’s 

method for collecting consistent recipient data on spending and posting it 

rapidly was effective and significantly increased the speed and quality of 

the spending data reported.29 The availability of standardized data also 

allowed the Recovery Board to use data analytics and predictive analysis 

to detect, prevent, and remediate the fraudulent use of Recovery Act 

funds. The Recovery Board reported that as a result, the board’s analysts 

were able to find multiple tax liens, regulatory violations, and suspicious 

financial activity for several companies under investigation by an 

inspector general. They also were able to notify a number of agencies 

that they had awarded Recovery funds to companies that were debarred 

and therefore should not have received federal funds. Initially, the ROC 

was deployed to detect and prevent fraud under the Recovery Act. In 

2012, Congress provided the board the authority to test processes and 

technologies for monitoring federal spending.30

As discussed above, the GAT Board had previously identified data 

standardization, including moving agencies toward a universal, 

standardized identification system for all federal awards, as a critical step 

for increased transparency. However, the degree to which data will be 

standardized across the federal government is still the subject of some 

debate among Board members. The recent OMB guidance requiring a 

unique, but not uniform, grant identifier will result in a less standardized 

approach for grants than contracts. Further, citing agency budgetary 

constraints and the potential of emerging technologies for extracting nonstandard data elements from disparate systems, GAT Board members 

are taking incremental steps toward increasing data standardization. For 

example, as the lead agency for the GAT Board’s Grants Data 

As a result, the board—

while continuing to maintain its Recovery Act fraud-prevention efforts—

has expanded its joint efforts with inspectors general and law 

enforcement agencies.

 28OMB, Updated Guidance on the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, M-10-34. 

(Washington, D.C.: September 24, 2010.

29The Government Accountability and Transparency Board, Report and 

Recommendations to the President (Washington, D.C.: December 2011).

30Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2011, Pub. L. No. 112-74, 125 Stat. 786, 920 (2011).
Page 21 GAO-13-758 Federal Spending Data Transparency

Standardization and Integrity Working Group, OMB asked HHS to 

analyze the existing level of standardization among grant making 

agencies, and assess the feasibility and cost of increasing data 

standards. This analysis examined more than 1,110 individual data 

elements from more than 17 different sources. It found that there was 

widespread variation in terminology and associated definitions that 

impacted how spending was captured, tracked, and reported. In addition, 

through its work with the GAT Board, Treasury is assessing the potential 

for implementing new technologies that would allow non-standardized 

data to be accessed by tagging and linking it to source systems, rather 

than collecting and warehousing data in a separate system.

A lack of uniform standards could also increase the burden on federal 

fund recipients. Federal fund recipients with whom we spoke told us that 

the lack of consistent data standards and commonality in how data 

elements are defined places undue burden on fund recipients because it 

can result in them having to report the same information multiple times via 

disparate reporting platforms. Fund recipients also told us that lack of 

consistent data standards can impact the accuracy of data reported. For 

example, one higher education official noted that increasing data 

standardization and reporting consistency across the federal government 

would eliminate the need for “human intervention” or manual data entry 

which can impact the accuracy and the timeliness of the data reported. 

Moreover, collecting data that already exists in agency award systems is 

also inefficient and burdensome to recipients. Federal fund recipients we 

spoke to expressed concern about the number of disparate agency and 

program-specific requirements that obligate them to report the same data 

multiple times or to report data that should have come from federal 

sources. These recipients offered a number of suggestions for minimizing 

reporting redundancy, including limiting data collected from recipients to a 

small number of essential elements that can only be obtained from 

recipients, pre-populating electronic reporting forms with data available 

from agency sources, and using data multiple times rather than requiring 

that recipients report the same data multiple times.

Data Standards and Recipient Burden

“Currently, the way the federal reporting 

system is, it seems very disjointed. At least in 

our state and in our work in agencies, we’re 

reporting primarily on the same people but in 

15 or whatever different reports. So ... 

standardization would help that, decrease the 

amount of time that we spend reporting, and a 

[single] portal would only then make it even 

more efficient.”— A representative from a 

nonprofit receiving federal funds
Page 22 GAO-13-758 Federal Spending Data Transparency

Another key lesson learned from the implementation of Recovery Act 

reporting requirements was the importance of obtaining and considering 

the input of stakeholders—federal agencies, recipients, and 

subrecipients—early in the development of both the reporting system and 

its procedures. Given the daunting task of rapidly establishing a system to 

track billions of dollars in Recovery Act funding, OMB and the Recovery 

Board implemented an iterative process. This process allowed many 

stakeholders to provide insight into the challenges that could impede their 

ability to report Recovery Act expenditures. Throughout the development 

of guidance and in the early months of implementing recipient reporting 

provisions, OMB and the Recovery Board provided several opportunities 

for two-way communication with recipients. For example, OMB and the 

Recovery Board held weekly conference calls with state and local 

representatives to hear their comments and suggestions, and address 

their concerns. As a result of these efforts, federal officials changed their 

plans and related guidance. For example, initial guidance in February 

2009 began to lay out information that would be reported on 

Recovery.gov, and the steps needed to meet reporting requirements, 

such as including recipient reporting requirements in grant awards and 

contracts. In response to requests for more clarity, OMB, with input from 

an array of stakeholders, issued more guidance in June 2009. The 

guidance clarified requirements on reporting jobs, such as which 

recipients were required to report, and how to calculate jobs created and 

retained.

During this current phase of developing transparency efforts, OMB and 

the GAT Board have implemented a structure to obtain input from a 

variety of federal stakeholders representing the procurement, grants, and 

financial management communities. However, mechanisms for obtaining 

input from non-federal stakeholders are limited to the public rule-making 

process. The GAT Board’s work groups consist of representatives from 

select federal agencies, OMB, and interagency forums. The work groups 

are designed to leverage the expertise of federal officials with in-depth 

knowledge of federal procurement, grant-making, and financial 

management operations. The Board does not have any formal 

mechanisms, other than the federal rule-making process, to obtain input 

from federal fund recipients. An OMB official told us that OMB is

leveraging pre-existing personal contacts made during the Recovery Act 

to obtain feedback from state officials. Further, this official said that OMB 

had conducted extensive outreach with non-federal stakeholders in 

seeking their input on OMB’s grants reform proposal. These outreach 

efforts included discussions on standardizing financial information 

collected during the pre-award and post-award phases of the grant 

Lesson Two: Involve 

Stakeholders in the

Development of Reporting 

Requirements and 

Guidance
Page 23 GAO-13-758 Federal Spending Data Transparency

process. However, state officials we spoke with expressed interest in 

providing additional input into expanding reporting requirements through 

more formal mechanisms, such as focus or advisory groups. Without a 

systematic approach for receiving and processing recipients’ input, such 

as the conference calls held for the Recovery Act, issues that could affect 

recipients’ ability to meet new reporting requirements could go 

unaddressed, compromising the ability of recipients to provide accurate 

data.

Non-federal stakeholders have been involved in the limited GRIP pilot 

project discussed above. Recovery Board officials sought feedback from 

the participating states, a locality, and institutions of higher education 

throughout the duration of the project through a series of webinars and 

teleconferences. An online help desk was also established to assist the 

recipients through the process. At the conclusion of the study, participants 

were surveyed. They expressed approval for several of the project’s 

aspects, including data standardization, the inclusion of an error-checking 

feature, and the use of a single central portal for reporting expenditures. 

Although a Recovery Board official told us that they gained valuable 

insight from stakeholders through the pilot, they reported that the more 

inclusive networked community of state and local officials that they 

established during the Recovery Act implementation had not been 

sustained.

Federal fund recipients we spoke with underscored the importance of the 

maintaining the connections they established with federal officials during 

the implementation of the Recovery Act. They also stressed the 

importance of having a formal mechanism to provide feedback to the 

federal government as guidance is crafted and before new transparency 

reporting requirements are established. Federal fund recipients said that 

they need clear and understandable guidance to ensure that the data 

they report are accurate, on time, and minimally burdensome. Officials 

from organizations representing fund recipients as well as the fund 

recipients themselves told us that the interactions between OMB and fund 

recipients during Recovery Act implementation were extremely effective. 

They noted the frequent communication with OMB staff members who 

listened to their concerns, addressed questions, and made adjustments to 

guidance, made it easier for them to report accurate spending data. 

Stakeholder Input

“We were really pleased with the level of 

communication that OMB and the Recovery 

Board had with us. While we were not always 

pleased with what they had to say, there 

would have been more hiccups if we had not 

had that good communication. Compared with 

Energy where we were getting inconsistent 

information, this was consistent guidance.

Although all in a crisis mode to get funds out 

with appropriate accountability, which added 

lots of pressure, the constant communication 

provided comfort. It really worked, and should 

be encouraged, especially in the 

communication between levels of 

government.”— An official from an association 

representing federal fund recipients
Page 24 GAO-13-758 Federal Spending Data Transparency

Under the Recovery Act, specific requirements and responsibilities for 

transparency were clearly laid out in the law, which helped to ensure that 

transparency requirements were implemented within tight time frames, 

and thereby provided unprecedented transparency. The Recovery Act 

specified the timing of reporting, including its frequency and deadlines, 

and the items that needed to be included in the reporting. The Recovery 

Board reported that the concrete deadlines imposed by the Recovery Act 

motivated OMB and the Recovery Board to take action. The Recovery Act 

required the Recovery Board to conduct and coordinate oversight of the 

funds provided under the Recovery Act to prevent waste, fraud and 

abuse, which the Recovery Board accomplished, acting together with 

OMB, at the federal level to implement the transparency requirements. To 

implement the recipient reporting requirements, OMB worked with the 

Recovery Board to deploy a data-collection system at 

FederalReporting.gov and a public-facing website at Recovery.gov. 

Further, OMB provided centralized guidance that defined the reporting 

requirements and the agencies’ role in ensuring the quality of data 

recipients provided. An official from one association representing 

recipients commented that having information come from one centralized 

agency, such as OMB, helped assure recipients that their questions were 

addressed correct. The Recovery Act also provided funding for the 

Recovery Board, which was used to provide staff and resources for 

developing and operating its data collection system, website, and data 

analytic activities.

In contrast, authority for implementing the current transparency initiatives 

is not as clearly defined. Authority for expanding transparency is centered 

in an executive order rather than legislation. As we have previously 

reported, given the importance of leadership to any collaborative effort, 

transitions and inconsistent leadership, which can occur as 

administrations change, can weaken the effectiveness of any 

collaborative efforts, and result in a lack of continuity.31

 31GAO, Managing for Results: Key Considerations for Implementing Interagency 

Collaborative Mechanisms,

According to 

chairman of the GAT Board, the Board’s vision for comprehensive

transparency reform will take several years to implement. Therefore, 

continuity of leadership becomes particularly important. Going forward, 

changes in the administration and GAT Board membership could hamper 

the success of future reform efforts if requirements and authorities for 

GAO-12-1022 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 27, 2012).

Lesson Three: Delineate 

Clear Requirements and 

Lines of Authority for 

Implementation Efforts

Need for Clear Guidance

“Guidelines need to be clear and 

uncomplicated so that people can follow them 

without having to refer to multiple different 

sources. You will not get the same level of 

compliance and enthusiasm and you will 

produce some degree of frustration if people 

do not understand the requirements and have 

limited resources to work with.”— An official 

from an association representing federal fund 

recipients.
Page 25 GAO-13-758 Federal Spending Data Transparency

implementing reforms are not clearly defined in statute. Moreover, the 

executive order that establishes the GAT Board provides it with a role of 

setting strategic direction, but not for implementation. As we have 

previously reported, interagency collaboration on a project, such as 

expanding transparency, is facilitated when one agency is designated to 

be accountable, and there are clear roles and responsibilities. This 

centralizes accountability and can speed decision making in an

organization. While there are many officials working together—the GAT 

Board, work groups led by agency officials, interagency forums such as 

the Chief Acquisition Officers Council, Council on Financial Assistance 

Reform and Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, 

and OMB—it is not clear where responsibility for implementing the 

initiatives lies. In oral comments provided on our draft report, OMB staff 

said that the administration, through its fiscal year 2014 budget proposal, 

has taken steps to delineate authority by seeking $5.5 million for Treasury 

to operate and improve the USAspending.gov web site. They believe that 

this proposal will establish Treasury as single implementing entity for 

operationalizing transparency reforms.

The lack of clearly delineated authority for implementing initiatives could 

result in multiple projects working at cross-purposes, overlapping, or 

missing opportunities to improve transparency consistently. The following 

represents examples that we gleaned from our interviews and focus 

groups:

• The GAT Board’s Data Analytics work group has been examining 

approaches to expanding the availability of data to help the oversight 

community detect and prevent fraud, waste, and abuse in federal 

programs. Similarly, the Recovery Board’s ROC has developed a set 

of assessment tools that can search large amounts of data from 

multiple sources to detect fraudulent spending in federal programs. 

Although the GAT Board’s mandate includes a requirement for it to 

work with the Recovery Board to apply the approaches developed by 

the latter across the federal government, the extent to which the work 

of the ROC is being incorporated into the GAT Board’s effort to 

develop approaches for using data analytics to improve oversight is 

unclear.

• The GAT Board and the Recovery Board have similar projects under 

way to standardize grants data elements and procedures. The GAT 

Board’s Grants Data Standardization and Integrity Working Group is 

identifying approaches to standardize key data elements to improve 

the accuracy of grants award data. The Recovery Board’s GRIP pilot 

examined whether a uniform award identification number could be 
Page 26 GAO-13-758 Federal Spending Data Transparency

used to track grants expenditures throughout the grant life cycle. 

However, it is unclear whether the study’s results will be incorporated 

into the work of the Grants Data Standardization and Integrity Working 

Group, which could lead to inefficiencies caused by duplicated efforts.

Moreover, without operational authority, the GAT Board must leverage 

the authorities and networks of its individual members. Thus, the 

successful implementation of transparency initiatives depends on the 

willingness and capacity of individual members’ agencies to drive this 

change, and may not be sustainable. For example, the GAT Board 

chairman used his position on the FAR Council to have it consider and 

vote on a proposed rule that will require all federal agencies to use a 

uniform procurement identification number for all of its solicitations and 

awards. The GAT Board chairman drove this initiative based on his 

capacity as Director of the Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy 

Office at DOD. However, the extent to which this governance structure 

will be effective or sustainable over time is limited to and dependent upon 

those existing connections.

Unlike under the Recovery Act, these transparency initiatives are being 

funded through existing agency resources using agency personnel, as 

separate funding is unavailable. While the GAT Board lacks funding of its 

own, it relies on agencies to develop approaches to improve data 

transparency. Agency officials we spoke with said they expect that 

automation and standardization mechanisms embedded in transparency 

initiatives now under way could help federal agencies to more efficiently 

and effectively manage their activities and programs. Efficiencies and 

economies generated by these initiatives might have the potential to save 

money, and thereby lessen the need for appropriations or other forms of 

dedicated funding. In the short term, the GAT Board believes it can 

continue to make incremental changes by leveraging ongoing agency 

initiatives.

Ensuring the transparency of more than $3.7 trillion in federal spending 

annually, including more than $1 trillion awarded through contracts, 

grants, and loans, and an additional $1 trillion in forgone revenue from tax 

expenditures is an important national goal. Efforts to improve 

transparency of spending data continue to involve multiple federal 

entities, under the strategic leadership of the GAT Board and OMB. 

Meanwhile, the Recovery Board continues to play a role in evaluating 

new approaches to collecting data and maintaining systems to use the 

data for ensuring accountability. However, roles and responsibilities for 

Conclusions
Page 27 GAO-13-758 Federal Spending Data Transparency

the effort are not clearly delineated. For example, under the Recovery 

Act, authority to mandate requirements was centered in OMB and the 

Recovery Board, and was clearly delineated and funded, whereas under 

the current transparency initiatives, the leadership for implementing 

actions is spread across several agencies, knitted together loosely under 

the GAT Board’s strategic direction. Given the importance of clear 

requirements and consistent leadership for ensuring recommended 

approaches are institutionalized across the federal government and 

progress is sustained over the long-term, the present governance 

structure for transparency efforts could hamper planned advancements. 

Having clear requirements and implementation authority, particularly 

through legislation, will help ensure effective and sustained 

implementation of transparency efforts across the federal government.

While the transparency initiatives under way represent a promising start, 

insights could be gleaned from lessons learned from the operation of 

Recovery.gov. Such insights would ensure that new approaches are 

implemented consistently across the federal government, and progress 

toward strategic goals can be sustained long term. As OMB and the GAT 

Board take incremental steps to improve data transparency and expand 

oversight of federal spending, it will be important to develop a long-term 

vision and concrete plan for improving transparency, and ensure its 

implementation. For example, a key lesson learned from the 

implementation of the Recovery Act was the importance of data 

standards, including a universal award identifier to enable the tracking of 

Recovery Act spending, and a uniform numbering system for identifying 

federal awards would improve the tracking of all federal spending. 

Moreover, by listening to stakeholders during Recovery Act 

implementation, OMB and the Recovery Board heard concerns and made 

changes to plans and guidance accordingly. As new transparency 

initiatives are developed, the input of all stakeholders, including 

nonfederal entities such as state and local governments, would help OMB 

and the GAT Board to identify approaches that minimize the burden on 

those doing the reporting, and address reporting challenges. Although the 

non-federal stakeholders are a broad and diverse group, as future 

changes are considered, it will be important to identify mechanisms to 

involve stakeholders as early as possible.

We recommend that the Director of OMB, in collaboration with the 

members of the GAT Board, take the following two actions: Recommendations for 

Executive Action
Page 28 GAO-13-758 Federal Spending Data Transparency

• Develop a plan to implement comprehensive transparency reform, 

including a long-term timeline and requirements for data standards, 

such as establishing a uniform award identification system across the 

federal government.

• Increase efforts for obtaining input from stakeholders, including 

entities receiving federal funds, to address reporting challenges, and 

strike an appropriate balance that ensures the accuracy of the data 

without unduly increasing the burden on those doing the reporting.

To ensure effective decision making and the efficient use of resources 

dedicated to enhancing the transparency of federal spending data, 

Congress should consider legislating transparency requirements and 

establish clear lines of authority to ensure that recommended approaches 

for improving spending data transparency are implemented across the 

federal government.

We provided a draft of this report to the Director of OMB, the GAT Board 

and the Recovery Board Chairs, the Administrator of GSA, and the 

Secretaries of HHS, DOD, and Treasury for review and comment. OMB 

provided oral comments, which are summarized below. HHS provided 

general comments that are also discussed below. In addition, the GAT 

Board and DOD concurred with our recommendations and provided 

technical comments, as well as additional clarifying information related to 

the recommendations. Treasury generally agreed with our findings and 

provided technical comments, while the Recovery Board and GSA 

provided technical comments only.

In its oral comments, OMB staff indicated that they generally concurred 

with our findings and recommendations. Regarding our recommendation 

for developing a long-term plan for implementing data standards, OMB 

staff agreed that the GAT Board’s plan provides an initial strategy and

added that multiple initiatives are under way. One of these initiatives is

the administration’s fiscal year 2014 budget proposal that would 

operationalize comprehensive transparency through the transfer of 

USAspending.gov from GSA to Treasury. We have provided additional 

information on this in the report. For our recommendation on increasing 

efforts to obtain stakeholder input as transparency initiatives are 

developed, OMB staff agreed that increasing efforts to obtain stakeholder 

input was important and pointed to their outreach to date particularly in 

seeking stakeholder comments on the grants reform process, which they 

said included discussions on standardizing financial information collected 

from recipients during the pre-award and post-award phases of the grant 

Matter for 

Congressional 

Consideration

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation
Page 29 GAO-13-758 Federal Spending Data Transparency

process. We have provided additional information in this report on this as 

well. We continue to believe, however, that as specific proposals for 

transparency initiatives are being developed, additional mechanisms 

need to be in place to provide two-way communication to ensure that 

reporting challenges are addressed without unduly increasing reporting 

burden. OMB generally agreed with our matter for congressional 

consideration on legislating transparency requirements, but noted that the 

Congress has provided a robust statutory framework through legislation,

such as FFATA and the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010, and therefore 

additional legislation is unnecessary. However, as we have previously 

concluded, given the importance of clear requirements and consistent 

leadership for ensuring approaches are institutionalized and sustained 

over the long term, legislation will help ensure effective implementation of 

comprehensive transparency reform.

The comments submitted by the HHS Assistant Secretary for Legislation 

stressed the need to recognize the impact of data standardization on 

agency operations and resources, and noted that the overarching federal 

vision for transparency must articulate both the long term goals, as well 

as more operational and pragmatic steps to be taken in order to achieve 

such goals. HHS also underscored the importance of coming to an 

agreement on the range of federal spending information that is needed to 

achieve transparency and on which data elements are mandatory for 

reporting and for information collection requirements. 

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional 

committees and the Recovery Board and GAT Board Chairs, the Director 

of OMB, the Secretaries of HHS, DOD, and Treasury, and the 

Administrator of GSA.

If you or your staff has any questions concerning this report, please 

contact me at (202) 512-6806 or czerwinskis@gao.gov. Contact points for 

our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found 

on the last page of this report. Key contributors are listed in appendix IV.

Stanley J. Czerwinski

Director, Strategic Issues
Page 30 GAO-13-758 Federal Spending Data Transparency

List of Requesters

The Honorable Thomas R. Carper

Chairman

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

United States Senate

The Honorable Tom Coburn, MD

Ranking Member

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

United States Senate

The Honorable Mark R. Warner

Member

Committee on the Budget

United States Senate

The Honorable Claire McCaskill

Chairman

Subcommittee on Financial and Contracting Oversight

United States Senate

The Honorable Susan M. Collins

United States Senate
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 31 GAO-13-758 Federal Spending Data Transparency

We were asked to examine efforts to increase the transparency of federal 

spending data, and identify lessons from the experience of operating 

existing data systems that could help increase federal spending data 

transparency. To accomplish this, we (1) reviewed federal initiatives to 

improve the accuracy and availability of federal spending data; and (2) 

assessed the extent to which lessons identified by GAO and federal fund 

recipients from the operation of Recovery.gov and USAspending.gov are 

being addressed by these new transparency initiatives.

To address these objectives, we examined data collection and reporting 

requirements under FFATA and the Recovery Act, the June 2011 

Executive Order that established the GAT Board, Executive Order 

13,576, “Delivering an Efficient, Effective, and Accountable Government,”

relevant OMB guidance and memoranda, such as OMB-10-06, Open 

Government Directive and Improving Data Quality for USAspending.gov, 

and reports outlining action plans and recommendations created by the 

GAT Board, the Recovery Board, and other federal entities charged with 

developing approaches to improve federal data transparency.

We interviewed officials at OMB, the GAT Board, and the Recovery Board 

who are examining new data transparency approaches. We also 

interviewed officials at three agencies who represent the perspectives of 

the federal procurement, grant, and financial management communities, 

and who are working with the GAT Board to build on transparency 

initiatives under way within their agencies that could be applied across 

the federal government: DOD, HHS, and Treasury, respectively. We also 

interviewed officials at GSA, the agency that manages USAspending.gov, 

to gain their perspectives on the challenges associated with ensuring the 

quality of the data submitted to this site.

To capture the perspective of the federal fund recipients, we conducted a 

series of interviews with officials from organizations representing federal 

fund recipients and government reform organizations. We wanted to get 

their perspectives on lessons learned from the operation of existing 

transparency systems, and federal efforts under way to improve data 

transparency. We selected these associations because our preliminary 

research indicated that they had either been involved in Recovery Act 

implementation, had published reports related to the Recovery Act, had 

expressed official positions on existing transparency systems, or had 

submitted official statements on pending legislation designed to improve 

transparency. To capture a wide range of recipient perspectives, we also 

selected associations that represented a variety of recipient types, from 

state and local governments, nonprofit organizations, and contractors. For 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 32 GAO-13-758 Federal Spending Data Transparency

this review, we interviewed and collected comments from officials at the 

following organizations:

• National Association of State Auditors, Comptrollers, and Treasurers

• National Association of State Budget Officers

• National Association of Counties

• Federal Demonstration Partnership

• National Council of Nonprofits

• National Association of State Chief Information Officers

• Council on Government Relations

• Professional Services Council

• Center for Effective Government

• Project on Government Oversight

• Sunlight Foundation

We also conducted seven focus groups representing a range of federal 

fund recipients.1

Finally, we reviewed our previous work on the reporting successes and 

challenges experienced by both agencies and federal fund recipients.

This process was designed to identify lessons learned from those 

experiences that should be considered as new approaches to data 

transparency are developed.

Focus groups included: (1) state comptrollers and 

budget officials; (2) state education and transportation officials; (3) local 

government officials from both large and small municipalities; and (4) 

nonprofit organizations, research universities, and representatives from 

business who contract with the federal government. Each focus group 

had between four and eight participants who were recruited from 

randomized member lists provided by the recipient associations we 

interviewed. We audio-recorded the focus groups, transcribed the 

recordings, and analyzed the findings with qualitative analysis software 

for common themes and pattern.

We conducted this performance audit from November 2012 to September 

2013 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 

 1

Results from nongeneralizable samples cannot be used to make inferences about a 

population.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 33 GAO-13-758 Federal Spending Data Transparency

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Appendix II: Government Accountability and 

Transparency Board and Work Group Agency 

Partners

Page 34 GAO-13-758 Federal Spending Data Transparency

The Government Accountability and Transparency Board (GAT Board) is 

composed of the following 11 members designated by the President from 

among agency Inspectors General, agency Chief Financial Officers or 

Deputy Secretaries, and senior officials from OMB. The President 

designates a Chairman from among the members.

• Director, Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy, U.S. 

Department of Defense

• Inspector General, U.S. Postal Service

• Assistant Secretary, Department of the Treasury

• Inspector General, U.S. Department of Energy

• Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs

• Inspector General, National Science Foundation

• Inspector General, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

• Assistant Secretary for Financial Resources and Chief Financial 

Officer, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

• Inspector General, U.S. Department of Transportation

• Inspector General, U.S. Department of Education

• Deputy Controller, Office of Management and Budget

The GAT Board established four working groups, as shown in table 1.

Table 1: Composition and Purpose of the GAT Board Working Groups

Working group Working group members Purpose

Procurement Data 

Standardization and Integrity 

• Department of Defense (Lead)

• Office of Federal Procurement Policy 

(OMB)

• Chief Acquisition Officers Council

Identify approaches for standardizing contract 

data elements and electronic transactions to 

ensure data accuracy and enable the tracking 

of contract transactions from purchase order 

through vendor payment.

Grants Data Standardization 

and Integrity 

• Department of Health and Human 

Services (Lead)

• Office of Federal Financial 

Management (OMB)

• Council on Financial Assistance 

Reform

Identify approaches to standardize grants 

data elements to achieve great consistency 

across the federal government

Financial Management 

Integration and Data Display

• Department of Treasury

• Office of Federal Financial 

Management (OMB)

Identify approaches for linking the financial 

management data maintained in agency 

financial systems with agency awards data in 

order to improve the quality of the data 

displayed to the public.

Data Analytics • United States Postal Service (Lead)

• Recovery Board

Expand upon the work of the Recovery 

Board’s Recovery Operation Center to 

develop a shared platform to improve fraud 

detection in federal spending programs

Source: GAO analysis of GAT Board Documents

Appendix II: Government Accountability and 

Transparency Board and Work Group Agency 

Partners
Appendix III: Comments from the Department 

of Health and Human Services

Page 35 GAO-13-758 Federal Spending Data Transparency

Appendix III: Comments from the 

Department of Health and Human Services
Appendix III: Comments from the Department 

of Health and Human Services

Page 36 GAO-13-758 Federal Spending Data Transparency
Appendix III: Comments from the Department 

of Health and Human Services

Page 37 GAO-13-758 Federal Spending Data Transparency
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 38 GAO-13-758 Federal Spending Data Transparency

Stanley J. Czerwinski, (202) 512-6806 or czerwinskis@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, Carol L. Patey, Assistant 

Director, and Kathleen M. Drennan, Ph.D., Analyst-in-Charge, supervised 

the development of this report. Gerard S. Burke and Patricia Norris made 

significant contributions to all aspects of this report. 

Cynthia M. Saunders, Ph.D. assisted with the design and methodology, 

Andrew J. Stephens provided legal counsel, Robert Robinson developed 

the report’s graphics, and Jessica Nierenberg, Judith Kordahl, and 

Keith O’Brien verified the information in this report.

Other important contributors included James R. Sweetman, Jr., 

Michael S. LaForge, William T. Woods, and Tatiana Winger.

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(451016)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, 

and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted 

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537.

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube.

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov.

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.